SUNIL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of impugned orders dtd. 21/7/2017, Annexures Pl and P2, respectively, issued under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short "the Act").

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has a domestic electricity supply connection issued by respondent No.2, which was inspected on 20/7/2017. He states that inspecting team allegedly found that petitioner was drawing electric energy directly from the street-light through a cable. An inspection report was prepared and impugned notices, Annexures Pl and P2, were issued demanding Rs.67,240.00 as assessment charges and Rs.8,000.00 as compounding fee on account of theft of electricity. Counsel contends that respondent No.2 did not issue any provisional assessment order before final determination of charges vide Annexure Pl. He asserts that the petitioner challenged impugned notices by filing a civil suit, which was decreed in favour of the petitioner on 22/8/2022, Annexure P3 and both the notices were declared to be illegal. First appeal preferred by respondent No.2 was partly accepted by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment dtd. 19/7/2023, Annexure P4. Counsel points out that second appeal filed before this Court has been accepted on 1/8/2025, Annexure P5 and the suit filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as barred in view of Ss. 145 of the Act in view of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in "Mahesh Kumar Versus Sub-Divisional Officer and another",, 2025 (3) RCR (Civil) 303. Placing reliance upon judgment Naveen Kumar Jain Versus Madhya Pradesh Madhya Ksheter Avidyut Vikas Company Ltd., 2025 SCC Online MP 1474, counsel has contended that as respondents have usurped the power of Special Court and have imposed civil liability, impugned demand cannot be sustained.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their respective submissions.